User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

please review at article

I am a student trying to make page for practical please accept this article Chetan Yadav 2005 (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Chetan Yadav 2005: Having the name of an institution, and an external link, is not an article. Please see WP:YFA and WP:GNG for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

ok dear sir/ma'am, I understood please allow me to edit this draft Chetan Yadav 2005 (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Review request

Updated article @Moiz_Abbas Draft:Moiz_Abbas please review. 119.152.237.66 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Check please

Review request for draft:Moiz Abbas 182.190.197.174 (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey DoubleGrazing - speedy deletion of Pleo Technologies

Hey,

I filed an objection under the talk page, but the page was deleted before I submitted it. I believe this deletion is not justified in this case as I've explained in the talk page. Arnon (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Arnon: yes, I saw your comments, and have just responded to them (unless that talk page has meanwhile also been deleted). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

It has :/ Arnon (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Discord invite

Hey there. Congrats on being on the backlog drive leaderboard already. Off to a great start! If you want to hang out with other NPPs, consider joining us on the NPP Discord. Discord is live chat software that can be really fun. If not no worries. Thanks and see you around :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Novem Linguae; not really sure what that is, but I'll look into it. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello, DoubleGrazing,

I just deleted several promotional pages, what I call "social media profiles", that new editors have created that you had tagged for CSD. I noticed that you posted notices on their User talk pages warning them about creating autobiographies, I probably post this template several dozen times a day (or the conflict-of-interest one) as I go through expiring stale drafts. But I've noticed that most page patrollers don't offer any additional information to new editors other than a deletion notice. I think it is so important to give new editors information on why their page creations were deleted and I always toss in an invitation to the Teahouse so there is somewhere they know they can go to ask questions about their deleted drafts or sandboxes. I once had an editor do a scan of my edits and they found I had used the Teahouse invite template around 15,000-20,000 times in my tenure on Wikipedia so I send a lot of editors there.

But I digress, I just wanted to thank you for posting more than bad news about a page deletion and instead providing information on what Wikipedia is or is not looking for in drafts and articles. It probably takes a few minutes more of your time but you never know when a new editor might become a regular editor based on how they were helped out when they started editing. I wish more page patrollers would follow your example and not just rely on deletion notification templates to communicate with our newest editors. Maybe eventually we can have them move on to leaving personal messages like this one some day (one can hope!). Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, @Liz; good of you to drop by, especially when I know you're busy. My takeaway from what you say is that I should make more of an effort to explain to new editors what is happening and why, and that's certainly a valid point. I often patrol the AfC feed, and especially anything submitted in the user space or otherwise 'not quite right', and unfortunately there one comes across all sorts of stuff, some of it pretty bad. But of course that's no reason to become cynical or rash, and we must try to think of the individual behind each edit. Point well taken, thank you. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about MET Group article

Hello DoubleGrazing, I have started a discussion at Talk:MET Group regarding my recent text addition. Kind regards, --Balazspocs METGroup (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

draft: smbm

hey now that i am thinking about it, it should be a redirect to the 2022 movie. SMBMovieFan (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@SMBMovieFan: done. There's actually a wizard for creating redirs, but I just went ahead and accepted this one to keep things simple. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft review request: Succession to the Italian throne

Hello, thought I'd request a review of Draft:Succession to the Italian throne if you have some time. The draft is mostly a translation of the original WP Italian article on the same subject. Thanks! - </nowiki>JTF2020 (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello I have added new information to my article. Please check.

Hello I have added new information to my article. Please check. SkiUniTyy (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@SkiUniTyy: I have rejected this draft, and I cannot see anything there which would cause me to rethink that. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Paul Sparrow Draft

Your quote: "The sources cited consist almost entirely of interviews, things the subject has said or written, passing or no mentions, and primary sources; none of which contribute towards notability per WP:GNG. The source that comes closest is the Hudson Valley One piece, but it seems ultra-local, and I don't know how reliable it is; in any case, it alone isn't enough."

This is simply false. This draft article clearly contains multiple credible sources, including the White House Historical Association (Paul Sparrow - White House Historical Association (whitehousehistory.org)) which states the following:

"Before moving to the FDR Library he was the Deputy Director and Senior Vice President for Broadcasting and New Media at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. He was a founding partner in the University of Maryland’s Future of Information Alliance, and a pioneer in interactive digital media. Prior to his work at the Newseum, Sparrow was an Emmy-Award winning television producer. He began his television career at KPIX, the CBS affiliate in San Francisco."

A pioneer in interactive digital media alone seems notable, no? Is not Wikipedia considered interactive digital media?

Very few individuals receive the distinction of being named director of a presidential library and museum, as so few exist. Unless I'm mistaken, we're now on president #46, and I'm certain #45 does not have a library documenting his time office. Sparrow served as library director for arguably the most popular president in U.S. history, as well as the Newseum director, as well as winning several Emmy awards as a television producer. A quick search of library directors on Wikipedia reveals several published entries with nowhere near as much notability or credible citations. I know this because I did the research. Sparrow very clearly has earned the notability for a Wikipedia entry and should be approved immediately. Danceswithedits (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Danceswithedits: feel free to point to the notability guideline(s) which this person meets, but until proven otherwise, I stand by my review. You're of course welcome to resubmit your draft, in order to get a different reviewer's take on this (and I'm happy to recuse myself from further reviews), although I must advise you to fully address the earlier reasons for declining, as this draft has already had several reviews and may not get many more before it is rejected outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Already quite familiar, thanks. Notability is, obviously, highly subjective, allowing for completely obscure individuals to earn published Wikipedia bios while others, like Mr. Sparrow whose accomplishments are clearly substantial by any standards, are denied. The previous rejections came from a reviewer who openly and unabashedly stated that my professional disclosure would result in rejections, adding a lovely touch to "subjectivity" that has nothing to do with the actual subject. I addressed the issues to no avail. Your claim that "sources cited consist almost entirely of interviews" is demonstrably false, yet you have no problem standing by that claim. That's your prerogative. I, however, hold myself to higher standards as a lifelong journalist and academic. Whether this article is accepted or rejected is irrelevant. The fact that it clearly should be accepted and will not be because of pettiness from a few angry Wikipedians (I do not include you in this category) is quite relevant and reflects the legitimacy of Wikipedia, which I sincerely hope will be reversed eventually. Danceswithedits (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

As an addendum, it appears that another editor has essentially hijacked the draft page and created a new page on "Wikitia," whatever that is. Makes no difference to me or, I imagine, anyone out there interested in this individual or FDR research. Given that this message was initially blocked for even mentioning the vile W word, I'm sure it's perceived as a viable competitor. Pity. Danceswithedits (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I added two citations from the Poughkeepsie Journal and one from the New York Times, in addition to adding a line about Sparrow's numerous C-Span presentations. C-Span, as I hope you know, is NOT a government source, as it is privately owned broadcasting company and from all I've seen on multiple Wikipedia pages, a credible source for notability purposes. FYI, since this seems to be such a dramatic issue, my contract with this individual ended long ago, so I'm working on this article strictly on a volunteer basis. As you'll see in the comments, my personal stalker again unabashedly and weakly attempted to insult me regarding citations. I expect nothing less from a bitter amateur, though, and simply find this amusing. Best wishes! Danceswithedits (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion tagging

I noticed that you tagged Gswaggg after I deleted it. Should I have tagged it? How is that done? This is something new to me (though I'm sure it's not terribly new), as I haven't been doing admin-type tasks in quite a while. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @UtherSRG: sorry, can't quite recall the details, but looking at User talk:Gswagg211 it seems this draft was recreated shortly after you deleted it. Does that answer your question at all? (The user is now indeffed, anyway, so I guess that's that.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really. Go to the logs for the article and you should see what I mean. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: still don't follow. What are you saying I 'tagged' it with/for? DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Paul Saxon Quinn moved to draftspace

Hi, thanks for your valuable comments for my article, please also see your comments: User talk:Johnst65

I worked really hard to improve your comments: Draft:Paul Saxon Quinn

Point 2, 3, and 4 i think are more or less done. I only wonder if i can leave the Section Discography how it is now. I made hyperlinks to WiKi pages (studio albums, Live albums and Video's) if they exist. For singles there are no WiKi pages. I took them from other internet pages. Maybe it is enough if i refer to that.

I will check if all the content is referenced now in the text, but i think it is done.

I am really puzzled by the first comment. Paul Quinn is a founding member of Saxon. He contributed to all Saxon albums as a songwriter and guitarist. In the comment is started that individual band members need to establish their individual notability. I really wonder how this is normally done. Could you please help me with this. Kind regards. Johnst65 (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Help me

Hello, this is a translation of a French page. What else do I have to do for it to be accepted Krystofia (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You need to stop creating multiple versions and edit the one Draft. Star Mississippi 23:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

deletion

why are you so keen on deleting my page, whats wrong? Masedibeng monica (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

CoinMarketCap

Hi DoubleGrazing, I noticed your reasoning for nominated the article for deletion based on WP:G11. I assumed the POV of the article was from a neutral perspective and certain elements of it meet WP:GNG guidelines and the website is of certain notability. May I please know how the article is "inappropriate for a variety of reasons"? As a fairly new Wikipedian I do wish to ensure I'm editing and contributing to the project (within WP:CRYPCUR) appropriately. Thanks! GR86 (📱) 23:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Waterloo Artificial Intelligence Institute

Hi DoubleGrazing,

Can you help me create a page for the Waterloo Artificial Intelligence Institute I have tried to create it but it has been turned down by you. Would you be able to help me build it out and get it published?

Best regards, Omar Omar Dari (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Archana Singh

The reason that the submitter was resubmitting their sandbox after being told to work on the draft is that they were trying to get credit for an article that they did not work on much. They had copy-pasted from the draft into the sandbox. So I concur with your rejection of the sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon oh okay, I did not get that angle to it. I reckon soon enough the other copy is also heading for a rejection, mind. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Raxmanbek Usmanov

Hello DoubleGrazing. I am just letting you know that I deleted Raxmanbek Usmanov, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which didn't fit the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  10:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Ged UK. No worries, I couldn't find a fitting criterion, but just didn't want to again move this to drafts. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

New discussion about MET Group article

Hello DoubleGrazing, I have started a discussion at Talk:MET Group regarding my recent text addition. Kind regards, --Balazspocs METGroup (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion: Alexander Valerievich Yakovlev

Hi there!

I'm a fairly new editor to Wikipedia and I'm still learning. Sorry if I made any mistakes with this page! Could you tell me what the problems with the subject page are, please? Is it the references?

Many thanks,

PlantLover Plantlover3000 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Plantlover3000: the main problem is that there is no indication that this person is notable in Wikipedia terms, which is a fundamental requirement for inclusion. Also, much of the content is unreferenced, or referenced using non-reliable sources, which is especially problematic in articles on living people. Also, the overall tone is promotional.

I will also post a conflict-of-interest (COI) message on your user talk page. Please read and action it as applicable. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, i have a question

why did you reject my wiki page? i would love to talk more on this topic. I LoveHorror Movies ForLife (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

About Draft: Yaşar Vurdem

Hello DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for your comments under page I created (declined before), over months, I added more cites based on your precious comment. I will add more cites with time. Looks like another editors adding cites too. I dont know how to create info box for works but I will try my best. Thank you again for your time and have a nice day ! Peacesaa (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

About the draft page

Hi @DoubleGrazing,

You rejected item Draft:Abdurrahman Pasha High School that I created earlier because of its resources. I've added academic-level resources. Can you please review again. Thanks Mustafa MVC 18:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Question from Orr.number (15:02, 16 October 2022)

Is there a way to specifically pic a topic to edit/contribute to or is it randomly shuffled? --Orr.number (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Orr.number: you can contribute on any topic you want. In the beginning, it's probably easiest to get started by editing existing articles until you learn how it all works; later on you can create articles on topics that are of interest to you (as long as they don't exist yet, of course, and generally meet the various rules and requirements). Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello DoubleGrazing,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.